On Feedback and Emotional Labour

Ellen Spaeth, University
of Glasgow, UK

Introduction

A body of literature has explored how we,
as facilitators of learning in Higher Education, can improve our practice in
the realm of feedback (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Winstone, Nash, Parker, &
Rowntree, 2016a; Winstone, Nash, Rowntree, & Parker, 2016b).Yet National Student Survey (NSS) scores remain low in the domain of
assessment and feedback (Office for Students, 2018). I argue that
one factor perpetuating these low scores is a lack of attention paid to the
importance of emotional investment on the part of staff when giving feedback,
how this conflicts with workload and quality enhancement requirements, and the
impact of this on students’ ability to engage with this feedback.

I propose that underneath
this lie the assumptions that 1) positive emotions can improve student
learning; 2) feedback can promote positive emotions; and 3) giving feedback
that can promote positive emotions requires emotional work on the part of the
educator, and these will now be discussed in turn.

Positive emotions in student learning

The first assumption posits that experiencing
positive emotions can improve student learning. This is a concept that has been
studied, in particular, by Pekrun and colleagues.

Pekrun’s (2006) theoretical paper explores an
integrative framework in which emotions related to one’s achievement are linked
to one’s appraisal of control and values, within the context of Higher
Education. For example, Pekrun proposes that where the student feels they are
less likely to fail (i.e. they are in control); and when failure is less likely
to harm them (i.e. they do not have negative values about the academic
context), they will be less likely to experience negative emotion.

These results provide a provisional basis for
the promotion of positive emotions in the context of student learning.

Feedback and positive emotions

Having discussed the capacity of positive
emotions to promote enhanced student learning, the second assumption, that
feedback can trigger positive emotions, will now be explored.

Firstly, in their seminal paper on
principles to abide by when giving feedback on formative work, Nicol and
Macfarlane-Dick (2006) argue that good feedback practice
“encourages positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem” (p. 205). They
propose that this will help students to become self-regulated, therefore more
effective, learners.

Following on from this, Rowe, Fitness, and
Wood (2014)carried out empirical research exploring
the role of both positive and negative emotions in feedback in Higher
Education. They conducted interviews with both students (n = 21) and lecturers
(n = 15). Qualitative analysis highlighted that negative emotions could result
in students ignoring future feedback. Conversely positive emotions, such as
happiness and pride, were felt when interest was shown in student work; and
happiness and comfort were felt in response to personalised feedback. The
authors concluded feedback could indeed promote positive emotions, and that it
was important to incorporate positivity into the feedback process.

Feedback and emotional labour

The previous two sections provide
preliminary support for the argument that evoking positive emotions through
feedback can lead to improved student learning, and that we, as educators,
should aim to promote this within our feedback practice.

I argue that giving feedback that promotes
these positive affective responses involves emotional labour, which can be
defined as “the effort which is required to display that which are perceived to
be expected emotions” (Ogbonna & Harris, 2004, p. 1189). In this case, the
emotional labour involves amplifying the display of positivity.

Meanwhile, because of workload
intensification, we are being asked to focus on being consistent and able to
produce large amounts of feedback in a small space of time (or use unpaid time,
in some circumstances). In their study interviewing lecturers about the
consequences of work intensification on emotional labour, Ogbonna and Harris (2004) argue that lecturers are emotionally
detaching from students due to high numbers, therefore using emotional
suppression as a defensive coping mechanism.

In addition, workload models typically
allocate less time than it takes in reality (Darabi, Macaskill, & Reidy, 2017) to
give considered feedback that is fair, consistent, and meets the relevant
benchmarks as well as being emotionally nurturing for the student, further
increasing the pressure on the educator.

This results in two potential, competing,
outcomes involving repressing or arousing emotion, which Ogbonna and Harris (2004) identify as techniques frequently
reported by participants (UK lecturers). In the first outcome, emotion is
amplified to maximise positive, emotionally-nurturing feedback; and in the
second, it is suppressed in order to be efficient and cope with high volumes of
students.

Figure 1 describes in more detail how
educators might: 1) engage emotionally, which involves emotional labour, and
may conflict with other pressures, resulting in potential burn-out for
educators; or 2) distance themselves emotionally, potentially resulting in
feedback that does not engage with the students’ emotional needs.

Figure 1: Model of
emotional engagement for giving feedback

How can we address this issue? An initial
suggestion would be to engage educators in discussion about emotional labour,
to raise awareness and surface their feelings, opinions, and coping strategies.
Another potential step would be to create guidelines on what kind of feedback
can promote positivity. This might enable educators to evoke positive emotions
in the student without as much emotional labour on their part. Further work is
required to explore how we can support educators to remain compassionate when
giving feedback without burning out due to stress or failing to provide timely
feedback. In a time where “scaling-up” is considered a priority, it is vital
that we find answers.

Biographies

Ellen Spaeth
is an Academic and Digital Development Adviser at the University of Glasgow.
Ellen has particular interests in the pedagogically-led use of technology and
the emotional impact of learning, teaching, and assessment practices.